Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It fully discloses the tool's behavior: returns zoning code, jurisdiction, eligibility verdict, and local ADU rules from live county GIS data. It also explains why this cannot be guessed, setting expectations about data source.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, return details, usage guidance. No fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite no output schema, the description enumerates the return fields (zoning, jurisdiction, verdict, rules). The tool is simple (one parameter) and the description fully covers what the agent needs to know to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% (address parameter is well-described). The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema, but the schema already provides a clear example and format. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description starts with a clear verb+resource: 'Check whether a specific Florida property can build an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU ...)', and enumerates specific return fields (zoning code, jurisdiction, eligibility verdict, local rules). It distinguishes the tool from guessing, which is critical given no statewide law.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever a user asks if an ADU is allowed at a Florida address'. It also provides context (Florida has no statewide ADU law) that justifies tool usage. No explicit when-not, but the context is clear enough.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.